Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40632205›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025

The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) critiques of alcohol research: Promoting health benefits and downplaying harms.

James M Clay, Tim Stockwell, Su Golder, Keegan Lawrence, Jim McCambridge, Nicole Vishnevsky, Alexandra Zuckermann, Timothy Naimi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

James M ClayCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR), University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3392-5099
Tim StockwellCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR), University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5696-6803
Su GolderDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Keegan LawrenceCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR), University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.
Jim McCambridgeUCL School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK.
Nicole VishnevskyCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR), University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.
Alexandra ZuckermannCentre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Timothy NaimiCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR), University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9849-4413

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR), many of whose members are linked to the alcohol industry, has published over 280 critiques on alcohol and health research. This study investigated whether ISFAR critiques favour studies reporting alcohol's health benefits while being more critical of those identifying harms. We also examined whether industry-funded studies are more likely to report benefits, and whether ISFAR's critiques reflect the methodological rigor of the studies they assess.

methodsWe analysed 268 ISFAR critiques published between April 2010 and January 2024, manually coding each underlying study for its content (whether the original study reported alcohol-related health benefits or harms) and each critique for its tone (positive or negative). Sentiment analysis (SA) algorithms were applied to critique summaries to assess tone using automated methods. Study authors were examined for prior receipt of alcohol industry funding. AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools evaluated risk of bias in 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses favoured (n = 24) or criticised (n = 12) by ISFAR.

resultsStudies reporting health benefits had higher odds of receiving positive reviews from ISFAR [odds ratio (OR) = 6.50, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = (3.62-12.00)], as did studies minimising alcohol harms [OR = 2.47, 95% CI = (1.40-4.45)]. Studies reporting health harms had higher odds of receiving negative critiques [OR = 0.29, 95% CI = (0.15-0.14)], as did studies minimising health benefits [OR = 0.21, 95% CI = (0.10-0.41)]. Algorithmic SA replicated these patterns, though the correlation with manual coding was modest [r = 0.20, 95% CI = (0.08-0.32)]. Studies with industry ties had higher odds of minimising alcohol-related harms [OR = 1.90, 95% CI = (1.04-3.50)], and those co-authored by ISFAR members had higher odds of reporting a J-shaped relationship between alcohol use and health [OR = 2.52, 95% CI = (1.00-6.48)]. No association was found between ISFAR sentiment and study quality as independently assessed by AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS (BF

conclusionCritiques from The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) consistently promote alcohol's purported health benefits while minimising evidence of harm, regardless of study quality. These patterns provide a valuable resource for industry actors to shape public perception, downplay risk and influence policy-using strategies that closely resemble those historically employed by the tobacco industry.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingBiomedical ResearchHumansalcohol health benefitsalcohol industrybias in researchconflict of interestrisk of biasscientific biassentiment analysis

Identifiers

PMID40632205
PMCPMC12529240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.